* Background is here. From the IHDWC…
“The House Democratic Women’s Caucus (IHDWC) has decided that owners of professional sports teams, and their leagues, should not monetarily benefit from the revenues created from a gaming expansion package being considered by the Illinois General Assembly that includes sports betting.
“The IHDWC believes that billionaires should not profit from people who are betting on their teams. Instead, the caucus is pushing for the state revenues created from the gaming expansion to be dedicated to community re-investment, mental health and addiction services.
“If women of diverse backgrounds had been at the negotiating table, we would have made community re-investment, mental health and addiction services the priorities, not the billionaires who own the professional sports teams. Women can no longer be ignored and side-stepped in the legislative process.
“The mission of the IHDWC is to promote the leadership of women elected to the Illinois House of Representatives and to create inclusive and collaborative policy outcomes for the state. It is our opinion that the gaming bill that is being discussed was not created in an inclusive environment and is not a collaborative effort.
“At this time, the women of the Illinois House Democratic Women’s Caucus will not support the proposed gaming bill until drafters remove language that allows any state revenues collected to be given to sports team owners and their respective leagues.”
That probably kills that idea.
- 47th Ward - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 8:16 pm:
===That probably kills that idea.===
Good. It was a terrible idea. Glad they stood up.
- filmmaker prof - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 8:37 pm:
Good x 2
- SSL - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 8:37 pm:
Well it sure was fun while it lasted.
- Shytown - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 8:56 pm:
Leave it to the women to inject some sensibility into this process.
- JAH - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 9:03 pm:
May ….Gaming….Springfield
- SaulGoodman - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 9:22 pm:
Huh.
They haven’t taken a position on min wage. Or fair tax. Or the freaking Reproductive Health Act.
But they write a strange statement about billionaire sports owners getting money because no women were at the table?
- wordslinger - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 9:23 pm:
I guess the Cubs, Sox, Bears, Bulls and Hawks just won’t play because they’re not getting a piece of the action. That’s their only leverage.
The cynic in me can’t help but think whoever pushed this giveaway has dreams of future employment with a major sports team in some capacity.
- D - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 9:47 pm:
Fan boys couldn’t say “no”
- nice things - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 10:03 pm:
I’m confused. Female members filed amendments to the bill. The leagues have female lobbyists. The Governor’s Office has females leading negotiations. The people writing the language are women. Is the problem that the lead sponsor isn’t a woman?
- Roman - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 10:15 pm:
== They haven’t taken a position on min wage. Or fair tax. Or the freaking Reproductive Health Act. ==
It’s a big group…maybe there’s a consensus among the membership on this issue and not on the others.
- DuPage Saint - Thursday, May 9, 19 @ 11:02 pm:
Good times 5. Owners can refund all their tax breaks subsidies and god only knows what else they got including workers comp protection I believe then come ask. So much to say so little time but in nutshell without being banned go pound sand
- Still Waiting - Friday, May 10, 19 @ 12:41 am:
This makes me want to stand up and cheer. The only good policy reasons to pass a gaming bill are to pay down bills, pay back the pension sysyems for missed payments in the past, and to help correct the structural deficit going forward. There is zero reason to give a cut back to the extremely wealthy owners, especially when other states with gaming laws are not. That looks like extreme cronyism. I thank these women for coming together to oppose this give away and advocate for mental health and addiction services instead.
- Hyperb - Friday, May 10, 19 @ 6:27 am:
The fee for the leagues isn’t from the revenue generated. It’s paid by the operators (casinos). It doesn’t go to the owners. It goes to players and costs related to maintaining systems to prevent sports betting from impacting the game. Looks to me like Rivers got to some of the women
- Anon - Friday, May 10, 19 @ 7:43 am:
Hyperb - c’mon. Is there a single state that has sports gambling and shares it with the pro sports team? (No). Why not? Because leagues already have an incentive to ensure games are legitimate and not affected by sports gambling.
- Perrid - Friday, May 10, 19 @ 8:38 am:
I’m fine with killing the idea, I think it should be killed, but I find their lecturing tone to be very weird. What exactly have they been cut out off?
And correct me if I’m wrong, but the 0.2% that would have gone to the teams would have been in addition to taxes/fees, so dumping the idea doesn’t give the state any more money, right? It just lets the bookies/operators keep more of the pie.
- Ambrose Chase - Friday, May 10, 19 @ 8:55 am:
Good. I hope they stick to this as a principle and don’t just use it to leverage something else. Pro sports have enough money.
- Dudley Magoo - Friday, May 10, 19 @ 8:59 am:
My bet is this was planned all along. Madigan can just say “sorry, can’t pass this without this Caucus so the Profesional sports teams are out.” Even Madigan can use a fall guy ever so often.
- Collinsville Kevin - Friday, May 10, 19 @ 9:05 am:
What Hyperb said, times two.
- ChicagoVinny - Friday, May 10, 19 @ 9:18 am:
Good riddance to bad policy.
- anonie - Friday, May 10, 19 @ 10:37 am:
Who thought it was a good idea to have owners that essentially control the game, getting a paid for outcomes, win or lose?
Might as well give the referees a payoff for outcomes, too. /s
Bad idea. Good job, ladies.